What on Earth are you talking about? Apple is "up front about what they are doing".. riiighttt.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Rivalry With Google Gets Personal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What on Earth are you talking about? Apple is "up front about what they are doing".. riiighttt.
Android as "Open Source"
One thing that bugs me about this whole discussion is that Android is repeatedly described as "open source." It's meant to make you feel that Android is somehow like Linux. But every one in the "Open Handset Alliance" is making a buck off of this. You have to be a company to join. What's so open about this? Can I join as a programer and contribute the the profits of these companies?
Android was a "for profit" company when Google bought it. Google said, "we can make even more profit by making an alliance with handset makers. The deal will be that Google's software is the centerpiece of all the phones. In exchange, we will provide the operating system." And that's how it is.
What is "evil" calling this "open source or an open alliance" when it's just basically a different revenue model from Microsoft licensing it's Operating System or Apple licensing it's operating system.
Unfortunately, a lot of geeks have fallen for this "Open source" disguise and decried Apple's patent defense, merely because Google describes what it's doing as "open source."
Well, if that's fitting then Apple's Iphone OS is open source too.
One thing that bugs me about this whole discussion is that Android is repeatedly described as "open source." It's meant to make you feel that Android is somehow like Linux. But every one in the "Open Handset Alliance" is making a buck off of this. You have to be a company to join. What's so open about this? Can I join as a programer and contribute the the profits of these companies?
Android was a "for profit" company when Google bought it. Google said, "we can make even more profit by making an alliance with handset makers. The deal will be that Google's software is the centerpiece of all the phones. In exchange, we will provide the operating system." And that's how it is.
What is "evil" calling this "open source or an open alliance" when it's just basically a different revenue model from Microsoft licensing it's Operating System or Apple licensing it's operating system.
Unfortunately, a lot of geeks have fallen for this "Open source" disguise and decried Apple's patent defense, merely because Google describes what it's doing as "open source."
Well, if that's fitting then Apple's Iphone OS is open source too.
Google is a one hit wonder and they know it. they're good at search (and maybe mail), thats it. most of their other products are half-baked 2nd rate wannabe rip-offs.
and Steve was right about Google being evil. Four years of censorship in china! hah! four!!
and Steve was right about Google being evil. Four years of censorship in china! hah! four!!
Jobs v Schmidt?
Please, don't make me laugh. Schmidt was very hard on Novell while he was CEO. In fact, imho, the company was lucky to survive him. No innovation, no vision, frankly no personality. Google succeeds despite Schmidt, not because of him.
Jobs, on the other hand, is a great visionary and communicator. Wins this shootout hands down. (Just needs to relax on the "magical" iPad a bit...)
Please, don't make me laugh. Schmidt was very hard on Novell while he was CEO. In fact, imho, the company was lucky to survive him. No innovation, no vision, frankly no personality. Google succeeds despite Schmidt, not because of him.
Jobs, on the other hand, is a great visionary and communicator. Wins this shootout hands down. (Just needs to relax on the "magical" iPad a bit...)
Google could care less about you, your "information", or "controlling" you. The only thing they want to do is to present you with AdSense views, so they can collect the advertising fees. It's really that simple.
Their personal relationship had better not affect us consumers/end users. They need to continue to do what they have been doing it seems - put their personal differences aside and accept that both companies do well at what they do.
KEEP GOOGLE CLOSE!
KEEP GOOGLE CLOSE!
Just yet another perfect example of how you can't have friends in business!
Apple and Google were WAY too pal-y... It was bound to end in tears as essentially, the goal of both companies is to make the most obscene profits they can....
This doesn't surprise me, or worry me, and it certainly doesn't make me have any negative feelings towards either company. They're both just trying to make money.
Their mistake was in getting so close in the first place.
Apple and Google were WAY too pal-y... It was bound to end in tears as essentially, the goal of both companies is to make the most obscene profits they can....
This doesn't surprise me, or worry me, and it certainly doesn't make me have any negative feelings towards either company. They're both just trying to make money.
Their mistake was in getting so close in the first place.
Thank you. That was my perception too. When the announcement came that he was joining Google, I thought it quite the WTF Moment.
Because building a full scale web search engine is a tad harder than building a jumbo iPod Touch.. which took them years to come out with.
Apple hasn't exactly had a record of success when it comes to web services (mobileMe and iWork.com anyone?)
And just which one of the giants would be content with their current size? Which strategies are each implementing to diversify its offerings within the global marketplace even more? What has it taken to get here and what will it take to be there tomorrow?
Not finding what you are really looking for... paying too much... being monopolized... or being mislead... THAT would be a problem!
Cant they just all get along?
What about dissidents in China? You're blaming Google for Chinese government's attempt to break into Google's systems? Try to use your brain before you type something.
This may make apple better. Partner with M$ on search and get them to do a multi touch Office. Get some mobile ad deals with Bing. Make their own in house maps software. Etc.
Why is this unexpected, terrible, or evil? We all know there is no free lunch. There are 1.7 billion people with internet access. Targeted/personalized ads are just business: Did he buy or didn't he buy? If so, how can we get him to buy again; if not, how can we get him to buy next time?
Control you? How? I can't think of one Google service that doesn't have an alternative or a reason I'd buy something I didn't want, just because a Google ad showed it to me.
I wouldn't agree it's inherently evil. They've got shareholders to satisfy and their primary business is advertising. If you have the best advertising service, you can charge the most for it.
What do you think they'll do with it? They're going to advertise to you. It's in the best interest of the company to accurately target ads to you for products you may be interested in. Are you suggesting they're going to blackmail users for money to keep their data private? How could that possibly be in any interest of Google?
Google is huge and has billions of people's data. This is their goal. Any time a company or government etc. gets so much information they are unlikely to keep this information secure. These kinds of leaks will become more and more common as Google gains even more private information they can't begin to keep secure. And despite the self-promoting drama about how they might leave China, they don't really care about privacy. Just ask Herr Schmidt.
All I know is that the often vilified MS doesn't own one millionth the amount of information about me as Google probably already does.
For the life of me I cannot figure out the large amount of negative votes for practically every article post here on macrumors.
Android is "somehow like Linux" in that it is running a modified version of the Linux kernel. I don't know if you're making a philosophical argument for what it means to be open source, but you can find the source code for Android @ http://source.android.com/. In my book, Google calling Android open source and sharing the source code isn't dishonest.
Do you think contributing to the Linux kernel, OpenOffice, or Apache HTTP server isn't making any companies money? Can no one ever make money anywhere in the chain of usage for open source to be truly open source?
I'm really curious to hear how it isn't open source.
Those aren't the same thing at all.
while i still do love adobe, i would be a fool to assume they are without fault. thanks for this site. i'm sure to add my own to that list